Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/544/2019

Rajnee Agroils - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

G.K.Suneja

13 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    544 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution:         18.12.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 13.06.2022

 

Rajnee Agroils Ltd., Pipli Road, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, through its Director Vinod Kumar Jain.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Dr, Sahni Nursing Home, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.
2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., New India Assurance Bldg., 87, MG Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 through its MD.

...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Girdhari Lal, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri R.K. Sachdeva, Advocate for Opposite Parties.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, Shri Amita Jain, Shri Vijay Jain and Smt. Meena Jain and present complaint is being filed by Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, one of the Director of Rajni Agroils, who is authorized to file the present complaint, vide Resolution passed in meeting of Board of Directors held on 08.4.2019. The OPs are the insurance company and working to do the insurance. The complainant purchased an insurance policy bearing No.35360244175100000001 from 12.03.2018 to 11.03.2019 of all machines and installed cables and other equipments installed in the plants, for total sum of Rs.43,93,000/- by paying a premium of Rs.43907/- + Rs.7904/- as GST, total Rs.51811/- after inspecting all the equipment and machinery installed in the plant. On 30.8.2018, the control panel capacitor Bank PF-COP 1 and Power Cable come under break down, thereby, he suffered the following loss/damages:-

1. Rs.25724/- were spent regarding purchase of capacitor and AL armed cable from M/s Super Wires Emporium Krishan Dham Complex, Kurukshetra vide invoice No.317 dated 06.9.2018.
2. Rs.2500/- were spent as 400 M.M. cable fitting labour chares from Guruji Electric Works vide bill No.754 dated 05.10.2018.
3. Rs.16841/- were spent regarding purchase of MNX 50A, MNC 70, MCB 63 A TP, Power Capacitor MEHVCSDY200A44 from Dev Electrical Works Yamuna Nagar vide Invoice No.718 dated 04.9.2018.

                   In this way, complainant suffered loss/damages to the tune of Rs.45065/-. He informed the OP No.1 in this regard orally and also submitted application dated 31.8.2018 to OP No.1 for giving compensation amount of loss/damages and claim No.3536024418519000007 was lodged. He supplied all the required documents to the OPs on 05.10.2018 and requested to release the claim amount vide application dated 09.01.2019, but no action was taken by the OPs on his application. The OPs issued letter dated 31.01.2019 to him, whereby his claim was wrongly and illegally repudiated. By not paying the claim amount, the OPs are deficient in service as well as indulging in unfair trade practise, due to which, he suffered great mental agony, hardship and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their written statements stating therein that the matter was got and surveyed promptly by Dynamic Associates Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors and as per its report dated 09.10.2018, the power cable, capacitor and control panel were of the year 2009; capacitors, MCCBs and Armoured cables claimed by the complainant had not undergone any type of excessive electrical pressure. Further, it was observed that capacitors are saturated, MCCB have completed their normal operational life and cables were found otherwise damaged/cut from different places and claim parts had failed due to normal wear or deteriorations and the same fact was brought to the notice of complainant. Even otherwise, the loss suffered by the insured/complainant was to the extent of Rs.25850.70. The investigator further reported that the liability of the insurance company was NIL. Therefore, the claim was not payable and did not cover the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

4.                In support to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed the evidence.

5.                 On the other hand, the OPs tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 and closed their evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased an insurance policy from 12.03.2018 to 11.03.2019 of all machines, cables and other equipments installed in the plants, for total sum of Rs.43,93,000/- by paying a total premium of Rs.51811/-, after inspecting all the equipment and machinery installed in the plant. On 30.8.2018, the control panel capacitor Bank PF-COP 1 and Power Cable come under break down thereby he suffered the loss/damages as mentioned in the complaint to the tune of Rs.45065/- and informed OP No.1 in this regard orally and also submitted application dated 31.8.2018 to OP No.1 for giving compensation amount of loss. It is further argued that the complainant supplied all the required documents to the OPs on 05.10.2018 and requested to release the claim amount vide application dated 09.01.2019, but no action was taken by the OPs on his application, whereas, OPs issued letter dated 31.01.2019, whereby his claim was wrongly and illegally repudiated.

8.                The learned counsel for OPs argued that the matter was got and surveyed promptly by Dynamic Associates Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors and as per its report dated 09.10.2018, the power cable, capacitor and control panel were of the year 2009; capacitors, MCCBs and Armoured cables, claimed by the complainant, had not undergone any type of excessive electrical pressure. Further, it was observed that capacitors are saturated, MCCB have completed their normal operational life and cables were found otherwise damaged/cut from different places and claim parts had failed due to normal wear or deteriorations and the same fact was brought to the notice of complainant. He further argued that even otherwise, the loss suffered by the insured/complainant was to the extent of Rs.25850.70. The investigator further reported that the liability of the insurance company was NIL, therefore, the claim was not payable and did not cover the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and prayed for dismissal the present complaint. To support his contention, he placed reliance upon case law titled Sikka Papers Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., 2009 (7) JT 465 (SC).

9.                There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant purchased an insurance policy from the OPs for all the machines, cables and other equipments installed in his plants/factory for the period from 12.03.2018 to 11.03.2019 for a total sum insured of Rs.43,93,000/-, after paying total premium amount of 51811/- (43907 + 7904) vide insurance policy Ex.C-3.

10.              The grievance of the complainant is that on 30.08.2018, the control panel capacitor Bank PF-COP-1 and Power Cable comes under break down and thereby, he suffered total loss to the extent of Rs.45065/- and supplied all the required documents to the OPs on 05.10.2018, but the OPs wrongly and illegally repudiated his claim, vide letter dated 31.01.2019 Ex.C-11.

11.              On the other hand, the OPs contended that the matter was surveyed promptly by Dynamic Associates Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors and as per its report dated 09.10.2018, the power cable, capacitor and control panel were of the year 2009; capacitors, MCCBs and Armoured cables had not undergone any type of excessive electrical pressure, capacitors are saturated, MCCB have completed their normal operational life and cables were found otherwise damaged/cut from different places and claim parts had failed due to normal wear or deteriorations. Even otherwise, the loss suffered by the insured/complainant was to the extent of Rs.25850.70, but as per investigator, the liability of the insurance company was NIL.

12.              From perusal of said repudiation letter Ex.C-11, it is found that the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that “the claimed electrical equipments/parts have not failed due to any excessive electrical/mechanical pressure and have exhausted their normal operation life due to saturation/wear and tear”. But it is pertinent to mention here that the OPs failed to produce any expert/engineer report to prove that the claimed electrical equipments/parts have not failed due to any excessive electrical/mechanical pressure. The OPs further failed to produce any documentary proof to prove that there was wear and tear in the said equipments and these electrical equipments parts have exhausted their normal operation life due to saturation/wear and tear. From perusal of “Machinery Insurance Policy” Ex.C-3, we found that the OPs are checking each and every equipments/machinery/power cable etc., its manufacturing etc., installed at the factory of the complainant, every year before providing/renewing the insurance policy and thereafter, they are providing/renewing the insurance policy of the complainant and now they cannot deny to settle the claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds merely by saying that such and such parts/machinery had exhausted their normal operation life as well as due to wear and tear without proving their above contentions.

13.              The OPs further contended that the capacitor and control panel were of the year 2009. No doubt, in the insurance policy Ex.R-2, at Sr. No.31, the year of make of Control Panel is mentioned as “2015”, but since the OPs checked each and every equipments installed at complainant’s plant/factory before providing/renewing every year insurance policy, then the OPs are now not justified in saying that the capacitor and control panel were of the year 2009. It might be possible that after the inspection of said equipments, the OPs had mentioned wrong year of make of said Control Panel in the said insurance policy. Moreover, from perusal of insurance policy Ex.C-3, it is evident that the OPs received a huge premium amount of Rs.51,811/- from the complainant to provide the insurance cover to his equipments/machinery and as such, they are duty bound to settle the claim of the complainant as per insurance policy. It seems that by way of surveyor report Ex.R-1, the OPs are contemplating the performance of impossibilities and shooting the arrows in the air. The OPs insurance company has not been able to prove the allegations, on the basis of which, they had repudiated the claim of the complainant. In the Surveyor report Ex.R-1, the said surveyor shown cost of material to the tune of Rs.19,365/- and then GST + Labour Charges to set right the same as Rs.3485 + Rs.3000 respectively, total Rs.25,850.70, but then he shown value of the Salvage of the similar amount i.e. Rs.25,850.70 and then shown net liability NIL, which is not understandable. If the cost to set right the said material/equipments comes to Rs.25,850.70, then how it can be possible that value of its salvage comes to the same amount, which causes serious dent to the correctness of said surveyor report. Moreover, from the perusal of repudiation letter Ex.C-11, we found that the OPs are mainly relying upon the report of surveyor in repudiating the claim of the complainant, but it is pertinent to mention here that the Surveyor report is not a final word and our view in this regard is supported by the case law titled United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus N.  T. Babu, Revision Petition No.2868 of 2013, DOD 01.05.2014 (From the order dated 22.01.2013 in First Appeal No. 330/2012 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram) (NC), wherein, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that “We have perused the photographs available on file produced by the Complainant and the report of the surveyor, which shows that entire stock had been damaged in rain, hence the value of the total articles comes to Rs.3,44,016.50/-. It is surprising to note as to, how the OP arrived at the conclusion that the admissible claim is Rs.40,765/- only. It is a meager amount and is not acceptable. The Surveyor report is not a final word, we place reliance upon the following authorities: a.  National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Giriraj Proteins IV (2012) CPJ 151 (NC). b.  Mahinder Bansal vs. UHBVNL IV (2012) CPJ 154 (NC). c.  Noor  Ali Vs. National Insurance Company Limited (2009) 17 SCC 565. d.  Nifty Chemicals Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 17 SCC 566. The case law produced by the OPs is not disputed but the same is not helpful to the case of the OPs being rested on different footings.

14.              Keeping in view the above case law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case referred to above and the facts & circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs insurance company has not been able to prove the allegations, on the basis of which, they had refused to pay the genuine claim of the complainant. Thus, the repudiation of the claim, done by the OPs, is held to be unjustified and amounts to deficiency in services on their part. As per complainant, he suffered to the loss to the tune of Rs.45065/-, but the complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove the same and in this regard, we can rely upon on the surveyor report Ex.

R-1, wherein, a total amount of Rs.25,850.70 was shown to be paid to the complainant for the loss suffered by him, therefore, the OPs are liable to pay the said amount to the complainant, along with compensation and litigation expenses, being deficient one.

15.              In view of our above discussion, we partly accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay the claim amount of Rs.25,850.70 to the complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.15,000/-, to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs, along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the claim amount of Rs.25,850.70 shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization and the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 71/72 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:13.06.2022.

 

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.